An electron is a posit?

But at the time that it is not being observed, its properties cannot be determined. The precise properties it is said to have are determined at, OR BY, the act of observation. Or so I understand. This is one of the meanings of 'the probability wave'. During the time it is NOT being observed, it is not in any particular location, and cannot to be said to exist as a point-particle. And this is why the question is being asked.

Scotty - any comment on this exact point? Is what I am saying correct here?

But at the time that it is not being observed, its properties cannot be determined. The precise properties it is said to have are determined at, OR BY, the act of observation. Or so I understand. This is one of the meanings of 'the probability wave'. During the time it is NOT being observed, it is not in any particular location, and cannot to be said to exist as a point-particle. And this is why the question is being asked.

Scotty - any comment on this exact point? Is what I am saying correct here?

So, if someone argues that if Enrico is a German, then Enrico is a European, but that since Enrico is not a German (he is an Italian) therefore he is not a European, whether that is a faulty argument is a matter of taste?

(That, by the way, is a clear counterexample to your position). That faulty argument is an example of the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Look it up.

I know what Wigner means by "consciousness". But what I don't know is what he means by "refers to consciousness". And that is what I was asking about. Not about consciousness.

The important thing to emphasize (which you did) is that if the act of observation causes classical properties to form, then classical particles are formed by our observation of them.

So, as far as classical existence is concerned, they would not until observed, but it is the place of the scientist to assume they exist in some form, even if it turned out that there is only the mind and no outer existence.

I believe that some of our most engrained notions about space and causality should be reconsidered. Anyone who takes quantum mechanics seriously will have reached the same conclusion.

What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects - the particles, electrons, quarks etc. - cannot be thought of as "self-existent". The reality that they, and hence all objects, are components of is merely "empirical reality".

This reality is something that, while not a purely mind-made construct as radical idealism would have it, can be but the picture our mind forces us to form of ... Of what ? The only answer I am able to provide is that underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable "ultimate reality", not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either.

The argument is apparently faulty/unsound, the form is valid. Yes, it is a matter of taste in intuition.

Things exist, and they exist as (and only as) they do, so if electrons are point-particles, then they exist as point particles, and never would they exist as something else, or else they wouldn't be electrons. Saying that something "exists as" is what is problematic; it's best to avoid using such a phrase.

That's not my understanding--not that my understanding is correct, mind you. It's my understanding that electrons are subatomic particles. All particles (even subatomic particles) are physical, aren't they? They might not be (as far as I know), but I am operating under the assumption that they are. I'm also assuming that probability waves (whatever they are) are not physical.

How they are depicted (as you say) need not matter unless they are being depicted accurately, and what do you mean by "its whereabouts" anyway? Aren't you also suggesting that electrons are physical? I hope you aren't saying that probability waves (whatever they are) have locations!

Also, I wouldn't want to confuse the what with the how, if you will. In other words, what something is is what it is and nothing else, and though we may have to go extreme lengths and concern ourselves with probability waves and mathematical equations in our endeavor to study them, we can't let how we do that (and what that entails) distract us from the fact that electrons are subatomic particles.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either they exist in a physical form, or they exist in a non-physical form. They can't exist in both forms. It feels like what's being measured and the process of measuring is being confused.

I know nothing much about any of that. It's all I can do to pin down what an electron is.

In physics and chemistry, wave-particle duality is the concept that all energy (and thus all matter) exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties.

Yes, I know. I was trying to use it as I think you are using it while showing that it can be done correctly, yet I also wanted to explain that we should avoid using it. People tend to think that if X exists as Y, then X can exist as something other than Y, and I'm pointing out that the only thing X can exist as is X.

I think we should keep straight in our minds the difference between those things that are said to be in our mind and things that are not in our mind. You mentioned concepts, and that is something that is said to be in the mind, and I don't think we need to be much interested in things that are in the mind--at least not so much on this issue. Concepts, ideas, thoughts, and abstractions are all mental entities, but what our concepts are concepts of, what our ideas are ideas of, and what our thoughts are thoughts of are all things that are not in our mind. There are exceptions, of course.

For example, if I talk about a brick and the particles that comprise it, then I'm not talking about something in the mind. Instead, I'm talking about something that is not in the mind.

As far I know, all particles are things that can be found outside the mind. I'm not sure about waves (at least not what you mean). Maybe there are actual mind-independent waves (I have no idea), but the term, "probability wave" certainly doesn't do much in way of making me think of things outside the mind.

Yes I agree X cannot exist as Y, but that is why particles and waves being concepts is important. .

Many are looking for a sense of certainty. It is a natural human instinct but I think it is a form of what is called in Buddhism 'clinging to views' or seeking security in dogmatic attitudes. I regard the ability to maintain equanimity in the face of ambiguity and uncertainty as the sign of a superior intelligence.

Here is an interesting essay on the question: Philosophy Forums: Reality, Existence, and the Atom

Particles and waves are concepts? What are the concepts of particles and the concepts of waves, then? Also concepts?

Then we were mistaken when we said protons were elementary particles, but we would not have been mistaken by calling them particles, nor are we mistaken by calling them subatomic particles, and even if we were, they are what they are regardless of what we call them. The physical matter doesn't suddenly vanish just because we get it wrong when we say the physical matter has no substructure.